Sri Bhashyakarar and Sri Vishnupuranam etc

[Guest guest]

Dear BhAgavatOttamas

 

In the recent postings there have been some discussions

re Sri BhAshyakArar's usage and non-usage of certain

texts.ADiyEn would like to supplement this with certain

facts gathered from aDiyEn's teachers.

 

Re the first point as to why he preferred to use exclusively

Sri Vishnupuranam whereas Sri Bhagavatam which is more

detailed could have been considered more appropriate,

the reason mentioned by Sri Murali Kadambi is certainly

a most valid one.Sri BhAshyakArar not only wanted to use

the PramANams which were used by his opponents so that

there could be no dispute re their validity,but also

because thro his natural brilliance he could and did

use IDENTICAL quotations from Sri Vishnupuranam first

in the Poorvapaksha to "prove" the Advaita point of view

and then in the SiddhAnta to coolly demolish it!

 

Apart from this other reasons for use of Sri VP were:

2.It had a reputation as an authoritative text from

very old times- it is mentioned in Sangam literature

and in Banabhatta's Harsha Charitam for instance.

whereas there was a constant controversy re the

authorship of Sri Bhagavatam even upto Sri BhAshyakArar's

times.

3.His guru SwAmi ALavandAr had given it the highest

place and called it the PurANa Ratnam.So there was

no question of Sri BhAshyakArar's choosing any other

text.

4.More relevantly to our SampradAyam: In Sri VP there

is an exclusive chapter to detail the greatness of

PirAtti,where she is called "VishNoranapAyinI" and

there is a Stuti also included therein.

In direct contrast, in Sri Bhag. her position is very

low and if one reads chapter 60 of DaSama Skandham

one finds her equated to Prakriti itself.There is

no question of "anapAyinItvam" there and in fact

the Lord is mentioned as being totally self-immersed

and indifferent to her! Obviously a book of that nature

however exquisitely beautiful in its descriptions

could hardly be the authoritative text of the

SRI VishishtAdwaita school!

 

As regards the second point of Sri BhAshyakArar's

non-usage of Divya Prabandham quotations: surely

the reason is obvious.He wrote exclusively in

Sanskrit and no Skt text could include tamil

quotations.Even SwAmi DeSikan who quotes so copiously

from DP in his tamil works,has to restrict himself

to Skt quotations in his glosses on Stotra Ratnam etc

whereas Sri PVP has no such problem.

But as pointed out by sri Mani there are ample instances

of Sri EmberumAnAr explaining specific stanzas from

DP,as detailed in Eedu and other commentaries to

substantiate the unanimous statement by all his

successors that it was DP which gave him the clear

insight into the Upanishadic Texts.

Sri EmberumAnAr TiruvaDigaLE SaraNam!

aDiyEn

BHARAT

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrI Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha

SrI Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaN SatakOpa -

SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESIkAya namaha

 

Dear SrI Bharat and other devotees,

namO nArAyaNa.

 

Thanks for your posting. adiyEn would like to add few

points here.

> Apart from this other reasons for use of Sri VP were:

> 2.It had a reputation as an authoritative text from

> very old times- it is mentioned in Sangam literature

> and in Banabhatta's Harsha Charitam for instance.

> whereas there was a constant controversy re the

> authorship of Sri Bhagavatam even upto Sri BhAshyakArar's

> times.

 

adiyEn has firm belief that SrImad BhAgavatham was

written by Sage VyAsa and thats what adiyEn has learnt

from the AchAryas here at Chennai.

 

> 4.More relevantly to our SampradAyam: In Sri VP there

> is an exclusive chapter to detail the greatness of

> PirAtti,where she is called "VishNoranapAyinI" and

> there is a Stuti also included therein.

> In direct contrast, in Sri Bhag. her position is very

> low and if one reads chapter 60 of DaSama Skandham

> one finds her equated to Prakriti itself.There is

> no question of "anapAyinItvam" there and in fact

> the Lord is mentioned as being totally self-immersed

> and indifferent to her! Obviously a book of that nature

> however exquisitely beautiful in its descriptions

> could hardly be the authoritative text of the

> SRI VishishtAdwaita school!

 

 

adiyEn humbly disagrees with SrI Bharat here. While

there is no doubt that SrI ViSNu purANam is superior to

SrImad BhAgavatham (Or any other purANam for that matter)

with regard to the explanation of tattvas, BhAgavatham

doesn't contradict vEdAnta ie. ViSishtAdvaita. It is only

an expanded version of Sage ParAsara's VishNu PurANam, by

his son Sage VyAsa.

 

SrI Bharat, in the 60th chapter of 10th Canto in SrImad

BhAgavatham, our Lord KrishNa is teasing Rukmini pirAtti

and makes Her cry. During that episode of teasing, PerumAL

says that He never married Her out of genuine love, but

only to teach a lesson to SisupAlan and his gang and curb

their power etc. He then says that We (the men of Yadu

dynasty) actually never care for wife, children etc and

are self satrisfied with themselves. This made our pirAtti

cry bitterly and faint. Then PerumAL consoles Her and

says that it was simply "hAsya praudhim" ie. jovial in

import and not to be taken seriously. PerumAL says that,

He wanted to see Rukmini dEVi's reaction to His teasings

and in particular enjoy Her face with lips trembling in

loving anger etc. He then concludes by saying that the

greatest pleasure of householders is to tease their

wives in a jovial way and enjoy their reaction. Then,

pirAtti starts performing naicyAnusandAnam that She is

afterall a lowly person with guNAs of prakruti and how

such a fool can be compared with the master of all who

delights in His own glory etc and starts glorifying

PerumAL in many a ways.

 

 

SrI Bharat, you know pretty well on what adiyEn has

written below and its not something new. But, adiyEn

is writing for the sake of completion of adiyEn's views.

Please don't mistake adiyEn.

 

First of all, it is clearly told that its only a

intimate jovial play between PerumAL and pirAtti.

PirAtti is also not making a statement about the

tattva as if She being "SrI", the consort of Lord NArAyaNa

has only qualities of the prakruti and that Lord NArAyaNa

never cares for Her and His devotees etc. They have first

of all made an avatAram (vibhava) as KrishNa and Rukmini

out of their infinite compassion to us and fulfill the

wishes of great devotees etc by exhibiting their Sowseelya

etc kalyANa guNas and also teach us about various aspects

in tattva,hita and purushArta. When a rich person acts

in a cinema as a beggar, he will act as a beggar. We

shouldn't be upset that he though being rich has acted

as a beggar and delivered a dialogue corresponding to

how a beggar will. Similarly, during the avatAras, its

the avatAra rahasya (secret) that pirAtti will play the

role of a jIva and teach us about prapatti, how to

approach PerumAL etc.

 

Well, we have to actually enjoy the great rasa involved

in that episode and shouldn't conclude something

contradictory to tattva by imposing the known fact that

Rukmini dEvi is not a baddha jIvAtma, but PirAtti Herself.

 

For that matter, SrImad RAmAyanam will become still

worse then. Lord Rama after killing rAvana says to SIta

pirAtti that She can marry anyone of Lakshmana, Vibeeshana

and the like and He is not prepared to accept Her back, for

She has been at some other man's place for 10 months. Does

this mean that we have to reject SrImad rAmAyanam as

something contradictory to ViSishtAdvaita (which has

understood the great glories of "SrI"), because it

portrays pirAtti very lowly as if She is in separation from

PerumAL, having sharp tongue while yelling at Lakshmana that

He is only after Her and is a partner of bharata for

a conspiracy against Herself and Lord rAma etc ? Ofcourse,

these things are performed by the Divya Dampati, only to

teach us about the great sin of bhAgavata apachAram. Since

sIta piled up untolerable words towards a great Lakshmana

and accused another parama bhAgavata Bharata, and started

beating Her breasts etc as if one is in hysteria, Lakshmana

(a great devotee) was severly hurt esp. the accussation

that he is after Her. The result of this bhAgavatha apachAram

is the 10 month severe punishment for SIta making Her devoid

of the company of Lord and undergo many sufferings and also

finally make Her undergo agni pariksha etc. Thats why, Lord

RAma replied back (after killing rAvana) with strong words

that She (SIta pirAtti) can now marry anyone of Her choice.

The message is that, Lord will be very furious towards those

who commit offense to His devotees and will make them

undergo sufferings and esp. make them devoid of bhagavad

anubhavam.

 

This doesn't mean all of the acts by the Divya Dampati

in their vibhava avatAras are mere "drama". Its not a mere

"show/drAma" by the Lord in exhibiting His great kalyANa guNas

like Sowseelyam and Sowlabhyam in mingling/moving with the

likes of Guha, Sugreeva, Sabari, Hanuman, Vibeeshana and other

devotees. Its not like a (wicked) politician who just goes to

a village and talks/moves with villagemen for a while, and

puts a drama for the media and the people as if he really cares

for the poor etc. The Divya Dampati's vAtsalyam towards their

devotees are limitless and these are genuinely exhibited in

the vibhava avatAras like RAma, KrishNa, Nrusimha and the like.

 

The bottomline is that, adiyEn doesn't see anything

contradictory to VEdAnta in SrImad BhAgavatham. Infact,

it is filled with great rasAnubhavam. But, SrImad BhAgavatham's

excellence in bhagavad anubhavam has been eclipsed by the

unparalleled beaquty of the Divya Prabandhams of Azhwars

and the outstanding commentries on it by our AchAryas.

But, our AchAryas have certainly taken SrImad BhAgavatham

to be a upabrahmana ie. its a valid pramAna for us. Infact,

it is in SrImad BhAgavatham that prediction of the avatAra

of Azhwars and our SrI Vaishnava AchAryas are there and it

has been quoted by SwAmi dESIkan in His SrImad Rahsya Traya

SAram :

 

"Kalau Khalu bhavishyanti nArAyaNa pArAyaNAha

kvacit kvachin mahAbhAgha dramidEshu ca bhUrishaha

tAmraparNi nadI yatra krutamAlA payasvini

kAvEri ca mahA puNyA pratIcI ca mahAnadi "

 

It explicitly states as to how especially in Dramida dESa

(ie. South India) great devotees of Lord nArAyaNa will be

born and in the banks of the rivers tAmraparNi, vaigai,

pAlAr, CauvEri and mahAnadi at Kerala. Since NammAzhwAr

is going to be the primary AchArya for establishing and

propagating VaidIka Matha / VEdAnta for Kali Yuga by

initiating SrI NAthamunigaL into Ubhaya-vEdAnta, Sage

VyAsa ( Or Sage Suka) mentions River TAmraparNi first,

though there were many AzhwrAs before NammAzhwar born at

other places, as far as history goes. Also, BhAgavatham

states that even people from kruta yuga will be willing

to take birth in this kali yuga since one is going to

become most fortunate by coming in contact with these

devotees ( AzhwArs and SrI VaishNava AchAryas). BhAgavatham

is also explicit that these devotees are going to start

the "sankeertanam" which is going to have unparalleled

effects to the extent of attaining moksha. That sankeertanam

is nothing but the Divya Prabandhams of AzhwArs and Stotras

of our AchAryas.

 

Also, SwAmi dESIkan explains by quoting only from SrImad

BhAgavatham that SAyujyam is the perfect description of

moksham and SAlOkyam etc are only partial in the sense that

SAlOkyam etc refers to the attainment of the vibhava lOkas

within the material world.

 

There are around four commentries on SrImad BhAgavatham

by our AchAryas.

 

SrImad BhAgavatham is certainly a valid pramAna and our

sampradAyam does give a very high status to it.

 

> As regards the second point of Sri BhAshyakArar's

> non-usage of Divya Prabandham quotations: surely

> the reason is obvious.He wrote exclusively in

> Sanskrit and no Skt text could include tamil

> quotations.

 

 

This is one interesting issue. But, BhAshyakAra

(ie. Bhagavad RAmAnuja) certainly wrote directly the

teachings/interpretations of Azhwars in some places

of his commentries, apart from following the teachings

in general.

 

This is to just give a sample (as adiyEn learnt from

SrI U.Ve. KarunAkaran SwAmi) :

 

In the "vibhUti yOga" ie.10th chapter of Bhagavad GIta,

BhAshyakAra comments for the word "dEvadEvA" of 15th

verse as

 

dEva dEva :

"daivatAnAm api parama daivata, yathA manushya-mruga-pakshi-

sarIsrupAdeen Soundarya-Sowseelyadi-kalyANa-guNagaNaihi

daivatAni ateetya vartantE tathA tAni sarvANi daivatAni api

taihi taihi guNaihi ateetya vartamAna "

 

 

ie. " The Supreme Deity even of all divinities ! Just as

the (demi)gods surpass men, animals, birds,

reptiles etc in beauty (Soundarya), condescension

(Sowseelya) and the host of auspicious qualities,

You O Lord, in the same manner, transcend all these

(demi) gods in all these attributes !

 

< Refer Trans. by SrI AdidEvAnanda >.

 

What a beautiful and enjoyable commenty to the word

"dEvadEva" in sweet and simple sanskrit, really bringing out

the greatness of our PerumAL !! Lets see the original

source of inspirartion for BhAshyakAra as well.

 

This is exactly the direct commentry of the word "dEvadEva"

by NammAzhwAr during his outpourings (ThiruvAimozhi 8.1.5 ) :

 

"aaruyirO! .... manisarkuth dEvar pOla dEvarkku dEvAvO ..."

 

" .......You are the Lord of dEvas like how dEvas lord

over humans ....".

 

Lets now enjoy the nectarian commentry by our dear PiLLAn, for

this anubhavam of Azhwar :

 

" ...aathmaguNangaLAlum rUpaguNangaLAlum manushyariR kAttil

dEvargaL yetthanai vilakshaNarAyiruppAr, appadiyE dEvargaL

manushyar yennumpadi andak guNangaLAl vilakshaNanAi ...."

 

The only change in the GIta BhAshya is that, instead

of the term aatmagUNa, "sowseelya etc aatmaguNAs" is present

and addition of animals,repltiles etc alongwith humans.

What a beautiful way in which PiLLAn follows his AchArya

Bhagavad RAmAnuja in his commentry ! Ofcourse the commentry

of PiLLAn is filled with many a typical outpourings of

Bhagavad RAmAnuja in nectarian sanskrit that mesmerizes the

reader and making him/her engorssed in the kalyANa guNas of

SrIman nArAyaNa _without fail_. This is because, of the

direct influence of the traditional kAlakshEbam (discourses)

and the divine grace of Bhagavad RAmAnuja.

 

>Even SwAmi DeSikan who quotes so copiously

> from DP in his tamil works,has to restrict himself

> to Skt quotations in his glosses on Stotra Ratnam etc

 

SwAmi dESIkan actually goes a step ahead in His outstanding

commentry to Bhagavad RAmAnuja's GIta BhAshya, viz. GIta

TAtparya Chandrika. SwAmi dESikan must have felt that, only

the tamil songs of Azhwars can't be quoted in Sanskrit

works, but why not translate the tamil song into Sanskrit

and quote it !!

 

For the verse 17.10 in bhagavad gIta, SwAmi dESIkan quotes

the following verse as that of BhaktAn~grirENu's

(Thondar-adip-podi Azhwar, literally meaning "Dust of Feet of

devotees") work, which is actually the translated version of

the 41st verse of Thondaradip-podi AzhwAr's ThirumAlai :

 

"divyairavEdyavibhavEti yadi bruvanti -

mAdhvImanOjn~yatulaseeka yadIti cAhuhu |

OonakriyA api parAnapi kArayantO bhuktAdhikam -

dadati tEd nanu (nana) tat pavitram ||

 

Please refer to the analysis of SrI abhinava dESIka

UttamUr swAmi in his commentry to this 41st pAsuram

of ThirumAlai, for further details on the "Ucchishtam"

referred to in ThirumAlai and the gIta bhAshya.

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

anantapadmanAbhan,

KrishNArpaNam.

[Guest guest]

-

A.Bharat <kbharat

> 2.It had a reputation as an authoritative text from

> very old times- it is mentioned in Sangam literature

> and in Banabhatta's Harsha Charitam for instance.

> whereas there was a constant controversy re the

> authorship of Sri Bhagavatam even upto Sri BhAshyakArar's

> times.

 

I am unclear as to why there should be any question over the Bhaagavatam's

authenticity as a Puraana. I can most certainly say that the evidence does

not support the idea that the Puraana was a recent composition and that

anyone other than Vyaasa composed it. Other Puraanas glorify or at least

mention Shriimad Bhaagavatam, and it seems unlikely that such Puraanas would

glorify a scripture which had not been composed at the time of their

compilation! Here are a few examples:

 

padma puraaNa, uttara-khaNDa 236.18-21 lists the 18 puraaNa-s and this list

includes the bhaagaavata:

 

vaiShNava.m naaradiiya.m cha tathaa bhagavata.m subham |

gaaruDa.m cha tathaa paadma.m vaaraaha.m shubhadarshane ||

saatvikaani puraaNaani vij~neyaani shubhaani vai |

brahmaaNDa.m brahmavaivarta.m maarkaNDeya.m tathaiva cha ||

bhaviShyam vaamana.m braahma.m raajasaani nibodha me |

matsya.m kaurma.m tathaa lai.nga.m shaiva.m skaanda.m tathaaiva

cha aagneya.m cha ShaD etaani taamasaani nibodha me ||

 

The matsya puraaNa 53.20-22 describes the bhaagavatam as that puraana which

explains the topmost dharma with reference to the Gaayatrii mantra, tells of

the killing of the demon Vritra, and has 18,000 verses:

 

yatraadhikR^itya gaayatrii.m varNyate dharmavistaraH |

vR^itraasuravadhopeta.m tad bhaagavatam iShyate ||

likhitvaa tach cha yo dadyaad dhemasi.mhasamanvitam |

prauShThapadyaa.m paurNamaasyaa.m sa yaati paramaa.m gatim ||

aShTaadashasahasraaNi puraaNa.m tat prakiirtitam ||

 

The skandha puraaNa, prabhaasa-khaNDa 7.1.2.39-42 gives a similar

description:

 

yatraadhikR^itya gaayatriim...

saarasvatasya kalpasya madhye ye syur naraamaraaH |

tadvR^ittaantodbhava.m loke tach cha bhaagavata.m smR^itam ||

likhitvaa tach cha.... aShTaadasha sahasraaNi puraaNa.m tat prakiirtitam |

 

Similar verses are also found in agni puraaNa 272.6-7.

> 3.His guru SwAmi ALavandAr had given it the highest

> place and called it the PurANa Ratnam.So there was

> no question of Sri BhAshyakArar's choosing any other

> text.

 

-

Anand Karalapakkam <kgk

> adiyEn humbly disagrees with SrI Bharat here. While

> there is no doubt that SrI ViSNu purANam is superior to

> SrImad BhAgavatham (Or any other purANam for that matter)

> with regard to the explanation of tattvas, BhAgavatham

> doesn't contradict vEdAnta ie. ViSishtAdvaita. It is only

 

Scripturally speaking, Shriimad Bhaagavata Puraana is the best of the

Puraanas, as confirmed by the Puraanas themselves:

 

puraaNeShu tu sarveShu shriimadbhaagavata.m param |

yatra pratipada.m kR^iShNo giiyate bahudharShibhiH ||

 

Among all the Puraanas, Shriimad-Bhaagavatam is the best. In every line

great sages glorify Lord Krishna in various ways (padma puraaNa,

uttara-khaNDa 193.3).

 

This quote can be found in Nag Publishers' edition (and hence, also the

Venkateshwara Steam Press edition).

 

Beyond the testimony of the aachaaryas, is there any scriptural evidence

describing Sri Vishnu Puraana as the best of the puraanas?

 

regards,

 

Krishna

[Guest guest]

dear bhagavataas,

i was going through the postings reg. bhasyakarar's

non usage of srimad Bhagavatham to support his

arguments.

 

reg the above i wish to state a few points:

 

1. as it was already substantiated with scriptuiral

quotations from the various puranas by sriman Bharat ,

there is no doubt that srimad bhagavatahm is the

supreme of all the puranas.

 

2. the gaudiya vaishnavas for a long time did not have

a bhasya written on the brahma sutras because they

were following srimad bhagavatham to be the natural

commentary on the brahma sutras.it was only when they

were under severe criticism that a bhasya on brahma

sutras were written(govinda bhasya). even in the

govinda bhasya srila baladeva vidyabhusana has offered

numerous quotes from srimad bhagavatham to establish

the philosophy of Acintya bheda adbeda.

 

3. sri Jiva goswami of the same school in his tattav

sandharbha strongly establishes the bagavatham as the

best of all the pramanams incl. the srutis even.

 

4. on why sri bhasyakarar did not include srimad

bhagavatham as one of the pramanams, a) srimad

bhagavatahma states that Lord Krishna to be the

supreme lord and not an avatara.(in the krishna

sandharbha this is established by jiva goswami)while

Sri VP states on the contrary.

b) in some places as alredy brought out by other

rs the position of Sri is not as in the

Vishnu puraanam eg. She could not take part in the

Rasa Lila of Krishna .

 

hence for these reasons adiyen feel it was much easier

for emberumanar to qoute from sriVP and not include

SB.

 

i have perented these not to refute others' views but

to supplement them .

 

adiyen

ramanuja dasan

narasimhan ranganathan

 

 

 

 

 

Send online invitations with Invites.

http://invites.

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrI Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha

SrI Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaN SatakOpa -

SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESIkAya namaha

 

Dear SrI Narasimhan,

namO nArAyaNa.

 

> 3. sri Jiva goswami of the same school in his tattav

> sandharbha strongly establishes the bagavatham as the

> best of all the pramanams incl. the srutis even.

 

SrImad BhAgavatham as such is considered as "Sruti"

by some Gaudiya Vaishnava AchAryas, which can't be

accepted by us and other vaidikAs ie. those who follow

vEdas. adiyEn doesn't know as to whether SrI BaladEva,

who wrote a commentry for Brahma sUtras for Gaudiya

Vaishnavas, endorses the view that SrImad BhAgavatham is

a Sruti. It will then be contradictory to quote SrImad

BhAgavatham as a pramAna by him, in those places where sUtras

refer to a Smruti for further strengthening its standpoint.

 

> 4. on why sri bhasyakarar did not include srimad

> bhagavatham as one of the pramanams, a) srimad

> bhagavatahma states that Lord Krishna to be the

> supreme lord and not an avatara.(in the krishna

> sandharbha this is established by jiva goswami)while

> Sri VP states on the contrary.

 

SrImad BhAgavatham (SB) has nowhere contradicted VEdAnta.

Gaudiya Vaishnavas take the SB verse "etE .....krishNAstu

bhagavAn swayam" to understand as if Lord KrishNa is the

"original" God and four handed forms of God are only His

expansions. They call these four handed forms of God as

NArAyana.

 

Its only a misunderstanding of that verse by Gaudiya

Vaishnavas (GVs) and adiyEn has earlier posted an article on

this issue. adiyEn has slightly modified and edited that

version to be more clear. It will be sent as a separate

posting.

 

One of the difficulties in the philosophy of GVs is that,

they have a graded version of the Ultimate Truth viz.

BhagavAn, ParamAtma and NirguNa Brahman.

 

BhagavAn is equated with Lord KrishNa who is accalimed

by them as the original God, filled with all auspicious

qualities etc. To be more precise, some GVs also say that,

only that KrishNa who was at BrindAvan playing with gOpis,

and esp. who did rAsa krIda is the "original" God and

all other forms are only His expansions. For GVs, there

is a gradation in moksha. For them, there are many VaikuNThas

and one place apart from them called Goloka, all of which

are not in the material world. The different VaikuNThas

are said to be presided by various expansions of the original

God KrishNa, who is at Goloka. To adiyEn's understanding, they

also say inherent differences in the jIvAtmas. According to

them, certain jIvAtmas are inherently related to Original God

to be in "mAdhurya rasa" ie.the relationship as that of

gOpis who played the rAsa krIda with Lord. Some are related

as that of YasOda, some as that of Arjuna as a friend etc.

Thus, they hold difference in the vary nature of jIvAtmas itself.

According to them, mAdhurya rasa is experienced at Goloka and

thus forms the ultimate moksham. Attainment of other vaikuNThas

are of lower nature due to the non-availibility of this mAdhurya

rasa. Well, these gradation system in moksha has no scriptural

authority (accepted by other vEdAntins) and its their formulation

due to their excessive love for Lord KrishNa. There is no mention

of such gradations in principal Upanishads, Brahma sUtras and

Bhagavad gIta. Infact, there are many contradictory statements

to their theory.

 

For GVs, ParamAtma is also none other than BhagavAn, but an

expansion of Him, manifesting only certain qualities etc. To

adiyEn's understanding, they equate ParamAtma with the antaryAmi

form of PerumAL and also to other 4 handed forms of PerumAL.

 

Surprisingly, they also accept the existence of "NirguNa Brhaman"

as that of Sankara. But, it is equated to the effulgence coming

out of the divine body of BhagavAn. The effulgence spreads

outside of the spiritual world and those who are after nirguNa

Brahman (advaitins) are said to get merged into that effulgence.

But, this NirguNa Brahman is none other than BhagavAn for them

in ultimate reality, but is only an expansion of BhagavAn. This

gives them a very contradictory metaphysical stand since BhagavAn

is savisEsha (who has various guNas, form etc) and He can't

simultaneously be "nirvisEsha" (without any attributes whatsoever)

as "NirguNa Brahman". They also say that BhagavAn and His

attributes are absolutely same, which is logically contradictory.

They get into a fix and dispose all these by saying that its

"acintya" ie. un-explicable. Similar to how advaitins

conveniently try to escape the objections by incorporating all of

them into the "nature of avidya", GVs incorporate the objections

into "acintya" (ie."Unexplicable" is the very answer, though our

Bhagavad RAmanuja has clearly established as to how the tattvas

are clearly explainable without contradictions). Bhagavad

RAmAnuja's establishment of the tattvAs and esp. the relationship

between Brahman and chit+achit, is fully grounded in Upanishads

themselves (ie. SarIra-SarIri bhAva and the concept of apruthak

siddi ie. inseparable union is verily present in Upanishads).

But the acintya theory of GVs is a logical deduction from the

metaphysical stand they hold for various tattvas and thus

"yukti" (logic) scores over the pramAna for them ultimately.

 

 

Also, none of the Brahma vidyas ( ie.upAsanAs prescribed in

Upanishads, which are the direct means for attaining moksha; also

known as bhakti yOga in Bhagavad gIta) in Upanishads has

instructed the meditation of Lord KrishNa who is their BhagavAn,

for attaining moksha. The meditation of Brahman in various Brahma

vidyAs of Upanishads are of the category belonging to the

meditaion of ParamAtma for GVs. To circumvent this problem, GVs

probably raised the status of SB to a parallel Sruti and thus

claim that meditaion on Lord KrishNa is also a direct means for

moksha and also that its the highest form of moksha. They say that

SB is also a "Sruti" and thus we can derive this information.

Even by accepting SB as a Sruti, they can't actually prove this

standpoint very authoritatively.

 

Considering Lord KrishNa as the "original God" is a direct

violation of very authoritative texts of pAncarAtra AgamAs.

Lakshmi Tantra (11.19-25), SAtvata Samhita (ch.9) and Ahirbudhnya

Samhita (5.50-57) clearly enumerate the various vibhava avatAras

like Lord Nrusimha, Lord vAmana, Lord RAma and others, and

Lord KrishNa is in this list. SrI Vaishnava AchAryas have

clearly made this point and that Lord KrishNa's form as

such is not the "para" form, and He is a vibhava avatAra only,

like Lord Nrusimha, Lord RAma and others.

 

Also, according to SAstras, those who perform upAsana (deep

meditation) on the vibhava forms of God will reach the vibhava

lOkas, which are actually inside the material world. Similarly,

those who meditate upon the vyUha forms of God will reach the

vyUha lOkas. Please refer to archives for more information on

this issue. Thus, meditation on Lord KrishNa (and not adopting

any standard upAsana prescribed in Upanishads) will make one

attain GOloka, which is inside the material world only. There

is only one spiritual world called VaikuNTha and there is no

gradation in moksha.

 

For a prapanna, it doesn't matter as to which form of God

( vyUha, vibhava, arca etc) he/she worships, since the means

(sAdhyaupAya) of moksha is not "upAsana", but prapatti/

SaraNAgathi itself. But, those who adopt bhakti yOga

ie.upAsana should neccessarily come to the stage of adopting

an upAsana. PAncarAtra aids one to come to that stage, by

prescribing meditations on vyUha, vibhava avatAras etc. Brahma

sUtras deal with the way one has to perform the bhakti-yOga ie.

upAsana and the upAsana of vyUha, vibhava avatAras in pAncarAtra

doesn't incorporate such rigorous specifications.

 

-------------------------

SrI Sripathy wrote :

 

My question is Lord krishna revealed all the 64

qualities which a supreme personality of godhead

possess.But in all the other avathars he didnt reveal

all his qualities.Does this mean during other avathars

he didnt not possess it or he din't reveal

it.(Especially during rama avathara where he took a

human birth and livrd with manushya sharira)

Sripathy

---------------------

 

There is nothing like God has only 64 qualities. Its just

an enumeration by a GV AchArya for the purpose of enjoying

the auspicious qualities. God has infinitely many auspicious

qualities. There is nothing like Lord RAma has lesser

number of qualities than Lord KrishNa etc. Even according

to GVs, both Lord Rama and Lord KrishNa are same, but

different only in the manifestation of qualities and ofcourse

Lord KrishNa being the original for them.

 

One can enumerate qualities of Lord RAma like "ever speaker of

truth", "marrier of only one wife" etc which can't be found in

Lord KrishNa. Based on this, one should not arrive at

conclusions like one avatAra is superior to other absolutely.

The superiority of the avatAras are being talked about, only

based on certain manifestation of guNas etc of the same person

and the "stress" is on the experience of such guNas and not to

make an absolute metaphysical distinction as if Lord RAma is

ever inferior to the avatAra of Lord KrishNa etc. Since its

the same God who takes many avatAras, one should enjoy all the

auspicious qualities exhibited in all the avatAras and there

is no Sastric authority to state that worshipping Lord KrishNa

is superior to Lord RAma etc. Such theories are formulated by

GVs out of their excessive love towards Lord KrishNa.

 

> b) in some places as alredy brought out by other

> rs the position of Sri is not as in the

> Vishnu puraanam eg. She could not take part in the

> Rasa Lila of Krishna .

 

adiyEn has seen many GVs keep stressing that only those in

mAdhurya rasa (like gOpis) can perform rAsa krIda with

Lord KrishNa and even "SrI" ie.Lakshmi dEvi can't perform it.

These argumnets are made due to the lack of understanding

of the tattvas. Moreoever, there is nothing in SrImad BhAgavatham

that supports these theories. "SrI" is verily the consort

of God and is always in all possible anubhavas with God, by being

present ever in union with Him. Even when Lord KrishNa was playing

rAsa krIda, "SrI" was united with Him in His chest with a rUpa,

apart from being united together through their divyAtma swaroopas

(ie.God by His divyAtma swaroopa is all pervading and the

divya aatma Swaroopa of SrI is in union with Him).

 

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

anantapadmanAbhan.

krishNArpaNam.

[Guest guest]

--- Anand Karalapakkam <kgk wrote:

> SrImad BhAgavatham as such is considered as

> "Sruti"

> by some Gaudiya Vaishnava AchAryas, which can't be

>

> accepted by us and other vaidikAs ie. those who

> follow

> vEdas. adiyEn doesn't know as to whether SrI

> BaladEva,

> who wrote a commentry for Brahma sUtras for

> Gaudiya

> Vaishnavas, endorses the view that SrImad

> BhAgavatham is

> a Sruti. It will then be contradictory to quote

> SrImad

> BhAgavatham as a pramAna by him, in those places

> where sUtras

> refer to a Smruti for further strengthening its

> standpoint.

dear sriman anand,

as it was pointed out by sriman harikrishna, it was

already established by sri jiva goswami of the same

school that srimad bhagavatham is the best pramana.

hence sri baladeva did not have any reservations in

substantiating his views from the srimad bhagavatham.

srimad bhagavatham is unique as being taken as a smrti

sastra(padma purana says so), matured fruit of smrti

sastras( SB says so 1.4.7) and also as nyaya sastra

since it is called as the natural commentary of the

brahma sutras by sri vyasa himself in Garuda purana.

 

> One of the difficulties in the philosophy of GVs is

> that,

> they have a graded version of the Ultimate Truth

> viz.

> BhagavAn, ParamAtma and NirguNa Brahman.

>

> BhagavAn is equated with Lord KrishNa who is

> accalimed

> by them as the original God, filled with all

> auspicious

> qualities etc. To be more precise, some GVs also

> say that,

> only that KrishNa who was at BrindAvan playing with

> gOpis,

> and esp. who did rAsa krIda is the "original" God

> and

> all other forms are only His expansions. For GVs,

> there

> is a gradation in moksha. For them, there are many

> VaikuNThas

> and one place apart from them called Goloka, all of

> which

> are not in the material world. The different

> VaikuNThas

> are said to be presided by various expansions of

> the original

> God KrishNa, who is at Goloka. To adiyEn's

> understanding, they

> also say inherent differences in the jIvAtmas.

> According to

> them, certain jIvAtmas are inherently related to

> Original God

> to be in "mAdhurya rasa" ie.the relationship as

> that of

> gOpis who played the rAsa krIda with Lord. Some are

> related

> as that of YasOda, some as that of Arjuna as a

> friend etc.

> Thus, they hold difference in the vary nature of

> jIvAtmas itself.

> According to them, mAdhurya rasa is experienced at

> Goloka and

> thus forms the ultimate moksham. Attainment of

> other vaikuNThas

> are of lower nature due to the non-availibility of

> this mAdhurya

> rasa. Well, these gradation system in moksha has no

> scriptural

> authority (accepted by other vEdAntins) and its

> their formulation

> due to their excessive love for Lord KrishNa. There

> is no mention

> of such gradations in principal Upanishads, Brahma

> sUtras and

> Bhagavad gIta. Infact, there are many contradictory

> statements

> to their theory.

>

> For GVs, ParamAtma is also none other than

> BhagavAn, but an

> expansion of Him, manifesting only certain

> qualities etc. To

> adiyEn's understanding, they equate ParamAtma with

> the antaryAmi

> form of PerumAL and also to other 4 handed forms of

> PerumAL.

>

> Surprisingly, they also accept the existence of

> "NirguNa Brhaman"

> as that of Sankara. But, it is equated to the

> effulgence coming

> out of the divine body of BhagavAn. The effulgence

> spreads

> outside of the spiritual world and those who are

> after nirguNa

> Brahman (advaitins) are said to get merged into

> that effulgence.

> But, this NirguNa Brahman is none other than

> BhagavAn for them

> in ultimate reality, but is only an expansion of

> BhagavAn. This

> gives them a very contradictory metaphysical stand

> since BhagavAn

> is savisEsha (who has various guNas, form etc) and

> He can't

> simultaneously be "nirvisEsha" (without any

> attributes whatsoever)

> as "NirguNa Brahman". They also say that BhagavAn

> and His

> attributes are absolutely same, which is logically

> contradictory.

> They get into a fix and dispose all these by saying

> that its

> "acintya" ie. un-explicable. Similar to how

> advaitins

> conveniently try to escape the objections by

> incorporating all of

> them into the "nature of avidya", GVs incorporate

> the objections

> into "acintya" (ie."Unexplicable" is the very

> answer, though our

> Bhagavad RAmanuja has clearly established as to how

> the tattvas

> are clearly explainable without contradictions).

> Bhagavad

> RAmAnuja's establishment of the tattvAs and esp.

> the relationship

> between Brahman and chit+achit, is fully grounded

> in Upanishads

> themselves (ie. SarIra-SarIri bhAva and the concept

> of apruthak

> siddi ie. inseparable union is verily present in

> Upanishads).

> But the acintya theory of GVs is a logical

> deduction from the

> metaphysical stand they hold for various tattvas

> and thus

> "yukti" (logic) scores over the pramAna for them

> ultimately.

 

reagarding the gradations of the absolute truth the

pramana is the srimad bhagavatham verse "vadanti tat

tattva vidah ...... brahmeti paramatmeti bhagavan iti

sabdyate"

 

in this verse it is not gradation but the supreme

lord is realised in different aspects by various

tattva vidah. the example given is the sun seen in the

mid noon at the zenith and the sun seen in the evening

as a ball and ultimately entering the sun and

realising what it is actually. all the three

realisations are of the same object- the sun but each

of them is different from the others.

 

how the lord exists in all the three are already given

in the sruti sastras. the bhagavatham only gived a

combined statement off all the three and establishes

that realising the supreme lord as bhagavan is the

most perfect realisation.

 

reg the different type of mokshas it is definitely

offensive to gradate them. we cannot just call

vaikuntha lower than goloka or vice versa.mukti is

that the jivatmas are established in their

constitutional position-their swarupa-SB- mukti hitva

anyata rupam svarupena vyavastitih. hence mukti is to

be situated in one's swarupa. the GV's say that our

swarupa is as per the rasa or the mellowful realtion

ship which we develop with the lord and say they are

12 in no- 5 primary and 7 secondary.among the primary

rasas the most sweetest is the madhurya rasa.

 

note that there is no inferiority or superiority in

the rasas but they differ in their taste. one rasa has

all the sweetness of the previous rasa and exceeds it

in the sweetness.Goda devi was in the madhurya

rasa.she sings to Sri Ranganatha not as Himself but as

Krishna

 

the Topmost rasa attainable in the Service of

SrimannNarayan is Dasya rasa - being a dasanudasan,

and filled with awe and reverence. any other rasas are

tasted in his other forms such as rama and krishna and

all the rasas can be tasted in their fullness only in

devotion to Sri Krishna paramatma. this is very

apparent in the arulichheyal of the azhwars.

 

the example given between krishna and Narayana is like

the association of the Grandson of the supreme court

Judge in his office and at home. the sweetness

definitely varies though it is the same person.

 

reagarding the philosophy of AcintyabhedAbheda it is

the only philosophy wherein all the statemnts of the

shastars, the Bheda, the abheda and the Ghataka can be

accepted as it is without any further interpretation.

every philosophy has to be established on the basis of

the shastras else it becomes simple speculation. this

philosophy of AcintyabhedadAbheda has been established

on the basis of taechings of Lord Chaitanya who is

glorified as the Yuga avatara of Krishna by SB and

various other Sastras. in his teachings all the

different forms of the lord and the different lokas

canbe found.

> > 4. on why sri bhasyakarar did not include srimad

> > bhagavatham as one of the pramanams, a) srimad

> > bhagavatahma states that Lord Krishna to be the

> > supreme lord and not an avatara.(in the krishna

> > sandharbha this is established by jiva

> goswami)while

> > Sri VP states on the contrary.

SrImad BhAgavatham (SB) has nowhere contradicted

> VEdAnta.

> Gaudiya Vaishnavas take the SB verse "etE

> .....krishNAstu

> bhagavAn swayam" to understand as if Lord KrishNa

> is the

> "original" God and four handed forms of God are

> only His

> expansions. They call these four handed forms of

> God as

> NArAyana.

>

> Its only a misunderstanding of that verse by

> Gaudiya

> Vaishnavas (GVs)

 

there is no misunderstanding of the GV's but rather

on our part.

when SB is supposed to be the Bhasya of the vedanta

sutras how can it differ from Vedanta.

 

Reg the Verse Ete camsa kalah..... Sriman Harikrisha

has alreday answered your questions. in addition Sri

Jiva Goswami establishes the Statement *Krishnas tu

Bhagavan svayam* as a sutra called paribhasa sutra- a

sutra which doesnot require any explanation or

interpretation and is whole in itself. this he does in

his Krishna sandharbha on the basis of smrtis and

nyaya.

 

though it may seem that SB talks of various subject

matters it is said in the SB itself that it has

nothing to do with the four purushartha(dharma artha

kama and moksha) but only about pure devotion to Sri

Krishna .

 

similarly thouggh the Bhagavatham talks of various

avataras, it talks in every word only about Sri

Krishna who is the only subject matter( Padma Purana)

 

 

 

 

Reg the position of Piratti in Srimad Bhagavatham, it

is said in the Dasama skandam by the gopikas prior ras

krida that *even sridevi who is situauted in your

thiru vakshastalam is yearning for the dust of your

lotus feet which she has to share with tulasi devi

and others*. i only expanded on this verse that though

situated in the vakshasthalam Sridevi yearns for

something which others are already possessing.

 

 

finally , the lives of the Acharyas were as totally

directed by the lord. certain things have to be taken

as Lila of the Lord only viz. Udayavar unable to

establish pancharatra worship in Thiruananthapuram

etc. it is only divine will. we being the

infinitismally small jivas try to explain everything

within the purview of our logic. but it has its limit.

 

 

Why Sri Bhasyakarar did not refer to SB is only known

to him and the lord. we can only try to give various

reasons to satisfy ourselves because we are strictly

bound by logic.

 

it is where this logic ends that what is called as

acintya begins.

 

adiyen

ramanuja dasan

 

narasimhan ranganathan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Send online invitations with Invites.

http://invites.

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Sri Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha

Sri Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaN-

SatakOpa SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaha

 

Dear SrI Narasimhan,

namO nArAyaNa.

 

I am not sure as to whether you have written the standpoint

of GVs, though you don't accept them OR whatever you have

written as the standpoint of GVs is also agreeable to

you. Your posting seems to validate the latter. I assume

it that way.

> reagarding the gradations of the absolute truth the

> pramana is the srimad bhagavatham verse "vadanti tat

> tattva vidah ...... brahmeti paramatmeti bhagavan iti

> sabdyate"

>

> in this verse it is not gradation but the supreme

> lord is realised in different aspects by various

> tattva vidah. the example given is the sun seen in the

> mid noon at the zenith and the sun seen in the evening

> as a ball and ultimately entering the sun and

> realising what it is actually. all the three

> realisations are of the same object- the sun but each

> of them is different from the others.

>

> how the lord exists in all the three are already given

> in the sruti sastras. the bhagavatham only gived a

> combined statement off all the three and establishes

> that realising the supreme lord as bhagavan is the

> most perfect realisation.

 

This is not validated by Sruti. There is nothing called

"BhagavAn realization", "ParamAtma realization" and

"NirviSEsha Brahman realization" with BhagavAn realization

being the supreme etc. I will later explain these things

and the meaning of that SB verse.

 

As you have stated, according to GV, it is the

same BhagavAn who gets manifested into ParamAtma and

NirviSEsha Brahman. But, if you simulataneously say that

realization of BhagavAn is the most perfect, it

automatically incorporates a gradation in realization

of the Ultimate Reality.

 

Please also go through my previous posting and the

archives. No entity can be "NirviSEsha" (devoid of all

attributes). This has been well established by Bhagavad

RAmAnuja and SwAmi dESikan, especially in their works

like SrI BhAshyam and SatadUshani respectively. Be it

Sruti (Sabda pramAnam), Inference Or pratyaksha, an entity

devoid of attributes can't be established. Please refer

the English books of SrI SMS Chari for a good idea of these

arguments :

 

1. Advaita and ViSishtAdvaita (Motilal Banarsidas)

2. Fundamentals of ViSishtAdvaita (Motilal Banarsidas)

3. Philosophy of the VEdAnta SUtra (Munshiram Manohar Lal).

 

You can then learn the sanskrit originals for advanced

analysis.

> reg the different type of mokshas it is definitely

> offensive to gradate them. we cannot just call

> vaikuntha lower than goloka or vice versa.mukti is

> that the jivatmas are established in their

> constitutional position-their swarupa-SB- mukti hitva

> anyata rupam svarupena vyavastitih. hence mukti is to

> be situated in one's swarupa. the GV's say that our

> swarupa is as per the rasa or the mellowful realtion

> ship which we develop with the lord and say they are

> 12 in no- 5 primary and 7 secondary.among the primary

> rasas the most sweetest is the madhurya rasa.

>

> note that there is no inferiority or superiority in

> the rasas but they differ in their taste. one rasa has

> all the sweetness of the previous rasa and exceeds it

> in the sweetness.Goda devi was in the madhurya

> rasa.she sings to Sri Ranganatha not as Himself but as

> Krishna.

 

As said in my previous posting, there is no scriptural

authority for a jIvAtma's svaroopa being characterized

based on the rasa it experiences while in its baddha

state. All these theories are of only GVs. Brahma SUtras,

Upanishads and allied pramAnas are very clear in these

things. Please gothrough the 4th pAda of 4th adhyAya of

Brahma sUtras. There is no pramAna to hold these views

as if a mukta will be only in certain rasa with a

particular form of Lord etc. Mukta is satya sankalpa as

stated in Upanishads and Brahma sUtras and thus he is

free to enjoy the communion the way he (ie. the

jIvAtma) wants and this is bhagavad sankalpam. Anyway, I

will explain these things in the final document.

 

> the Topmost rasa attainable in the Service of

> SrimannNarayan is Dasya rasa - being a dasanudasan,

> and filled with awe and reverence. any other rasas are

> tasted in his other forms such as rama and krishna and

> all the rasas can be tasted in their fullness only in

> devotion to Sri Krishna paramatma. this is very

> apparent in the arulichheyal of the azhwars.

 

Who is then SrIman nArAyaNa according to you ?

You again have no clue of Upanishads, Brahma sUtras and

allied pramAnas, esp. the commentries by SrI VaishNava

AchAryas. Its totally untenable to state that service to

SrIman nArAyaNa is only of dAsya rasa etc.

 

Also, I am sure that you don't know AzhwAr's pAsurams

properly and the commentries. The rasAs are dealtwith more

elaborately in the commentries.

 

Please gothrough the following article to know as to what

is meant by these rasAs, as a tattva :

 

 

Its not that, Azhwars like AndAL, NammAzhwar and Thirumangai

Azhwar had mAdhurya rasa (nAyikA bhAva) with only

Lord KrishNa. They infact had with the arcA avatAra PerumALs

itself and was not restricted to Lord KrishNa.

 

AndAL in vAranamAyiram says that "arimugan achyutan" (Lord

Nrusimha) got hold of Her hand during Her wedding in the dream.

There are many pAsurams in nAyikA bhAvam to Lord Azhagar of

thirumAlirunchOlai, Lord SrInivAsa of thirumala, Lord RanganAtha

of SrIrangam etc by AndAL. The nAyikA bhAva is not merely

expressed for Lord KrishNa, but also to other vibhava avatArams

like Nrusimha and also to arcA avatArams. Its not that Lord

RanganAtha was considered _only_ as Lord KrishNa. Infact, in

Her ThiruppAvai, She says "nArAyaNanE namakkE paRai tharuvAn",

in the first pAsuram where she glorifies the beauty of Lord

KrishNa, establishing that it is nArAyaNa who has come as

KrishNa. Please look into the commentries.

 

NammAzhwAr expresses nAyikA bhAvam towards many archA avatAra

PerumALs like Lord Nambi of thirukkurungudi, Lord

AravindalOchanan at tholaivillimangalam and others. NammAzhwAr

also expresses nAyikA bhAvam towards Lord RAma, Lord Nrusimha

etc vibhava avatArams.

 

Some samples :

 

1. In ThiruvAimozhi 5.5, all 10 pAsurams on nAyikA bhAvam to Lord

Nambi of Thirukkurungudi, by NammAzhwAr :

 

"Respected elders at home! Why do you all frown at me ?

Once I had seen our beautiful Nambi of thirukkurungudi, my

heart is not with me. It has gone to Him. Especially fancied

by the Sankha, Chakra, the lotus-like eyes and more

especially the red lips, most dear to me. And you were the

ones who initiated me in this field of Nambi-worship. What

is the point in you turning against me ? I can't desist

from my trance-vision of Nambi all around me" (5.5.1) "

 

 

2. ThiruvAimozhi 2.4.4 - nAyikA bhAvam towards Lord RAma :

< This is as per the words of the mother of NammAzhwAr

who is in nAyikA bhAvam, to Lord >

 

"She (NammAzhwAr in nAyikA bhAvam) disagrees with me when

I found fault with You. She calls You, "You who bear the

shower of arrows on Your broad beautiful chest, just for

your seetheart! ". She appears to be in an emotional

transformation to the personality of Sita, since she

appeals to You : "You did so much then ; Crossed the sea,

fought the hundreds of rAkshasAs, obliterated Lanka ....

all this for me. Now, you can quickly come on Your

favourite Garuda, raising the Garuda-banner aloft, as You

are always used to when Your devotees seek Your help".

Saying so, she heaves a very warm sigh; her inflammed

passion is an easy incendiary to nearby greens. And she

sheds tears to exhaust the rest of her pangs. Ans she folds

her hands in supplication - she who deserves it from You -

which justly merits Your coming here immedietly with an

anjali for making amend for the delay. Please do so"

 

< Both trans. by SrI VN VEdAntadESIkan >

 

3. Thirumangai AzhwAr in ThirunedundAndakam especially

experiences nAyikA bhAvam towards Lord RAma. This is one

of adiyEn's most favourite pAsurams : "maivaNNanarunkunjik

kuzhal pin thAzha magaram sEr ........................." (21).

 

adiyEn requests the devotees (like SrI MAdhavakannan) to kindly

translate this pAsuram and bringout the outstanding anubhava

of AzhwAr. It will great if someone can explain the pAsuram

based on the commentries also.

> the example given between krishna and Narayana is like

> the association of the Grandson of the supreme court

> Judge in his office and at home. the sweetness

> definitely varies though it is the same person.

 

Again, who is your nArAyaNa then ? Someone with

4 hands ? Thats your own mis-understanding.

 

Tell me as to whether a lover of a Judge won't hug

him when he is dressed as a Judge, and will only love

him when he is in his house with household dress. Similarly,

a jIvAtma can be in nAyikA bhAva (mAdhurya rasa) with any

form of Lord - be it four handed form, be it two handed form,

be it Nrusimha etc. Its all absurd to say that a jIva can only

be in nAyika bhAva with KrishNa and it is the perfect nAyikA

bhAva etc. The person being loved is Brahman and it

is He who is having the qualities. It is not the form

which is loving a jIvAtma, but only the Brahman who has

that form.

 

> reagarding the philosophy of AcintyabhedAbheda it is

> the only philosophy wherein all the statemnts of the

> shastars, the Bheda, the abheda and the Ghataka can be

> accepted as it is without any further interpretation.

 

This clearly shows that you have no clue whatsoever

of SrI BhAshya, NyAya SiddhAnjana, SarvArtha Siddhi and

other works of SrI Vaishnava AchAryas. First of all, Ghataka

Srutis emphasize the sarIra-sarIri bhAva by enlisting so many

things (fire, earth, water, aatma, .....etc). Please go

through vEdArtha Sangraha and other texts atfirst and

understand the concept before making such statements.

 

You then write as to what you find unsatisfactory with the

bhAshyam of Bhagavad RAmAnuja, as if some further

interpretation has been made by Bhagavad RAmAnuja.

 

You also write as to what is acintya bhEda-abEdha in essence.

Explain as to why is the relationship between BhagavAn and

cit+achit is acintya ie. unexplainable. Don't simply say that

BhagavAn is Sat,chit and aananda ; JIvAtma is also Sat,chit

and aananda, and thus both are same in this aspect and this

is the purport of abhEda Srutis. It will be a very childish

interpretation of abhEda Srutis. It has nothing to do with the

abhEda Srutis (Also, go through various adhikaraNas in Brahma

sUtras which deal with abhEda Srutis). Even if you say that

both BhagavAn and jIvAtma are Sat+chit+aananda, there is

nothing "acintya" in this. Explain as to what is the import of

bhEda Srutis, abhEda Srutis and ghataka Srutis. First of all,

its only Bhagavad RAmAnuja who gives the terminology called

Ghataka Srutis to AntaryAmi BrAhmana in Upanishads. Also go

through the commentries on the Upanishads for further

understanding.

 

> every philosophy has to be established on the basis of

> the shastras else it becomes simple speculation. this

> philosophy of AcintyabhedadAbheda has been established

> on the basis of taechings of Lord Chaitanya who is

> glorified as the Yuga avatara of Krishna by SB and

> various other Sastras. in his teachings all the

> different forms of the lord and the different lokas

> canbe found.

 

Again, you are advocating some sectarian views, which has

no pramAna from SAstras. You have no idea of the commentries

by SrI VaishNava AchAryas and don't write as if you know its

purport.

 

The SB verse you are referring to is in noway referring to

SrI KrishNa Chaitanya :

 

"krushNa varNam tvishAkrushNam sAn~gO ....." (11.5.32)

 

The context is the explanation of various forms and colours

of those forms of Lord and the way devotees will worship

such Lord, in each of the 4 yugAs. It has nothing to do

with a descent of Lord to earth. This verse is about the

description of the Lord, people will worship in Kali Yuga.

The form of the Lord is described as "krushNa varNam

tvishAkrushNam". In the previous yugAs, the colour of the

Lord was described as "Sukla" (white), "rakta varNa" (Red),

SyAmaha (blackish blue) respectively. For kali yugA, the

color is "KrushNa varNam". varNam means "colour" and krushNa

means "blackish". Thus, the colour is black. tvishA implies

"shinning" and krushNam implies balck. Thus the implication

is the shinning blackish colour. This is also glorified by

AzhwArs as maNivaNNan, karu mAnikkam etc. Please refer to

the third pAsuram of ThirunedundAntakam of Thirumangai AzhwAr

for the explanation of various colours of the forms of Lord

in various yugAs. adiyEn again requests a devotee to post on

this verse too.

 

SrI A.C.BhaktivEdAnta SwAmi has interpretted tvishAkrishNam

as tvishA akrushNam ie. shinning non-black, and equates it

to golden colour. It makes no correlation here as to how come

non-black will give golden colour. Also, Bhagavad RAmAnuja

was also golden in complexion and thus by this interpretation,

SrI Vaishnavas can also claim that kali yuga people should

especially worship Bhagavad RAmAnuja. Added to this is another

misinterpretation of the word varNam. SrI AC BhaktivEdAnta swAmi

translates krushNa-varNam into "Reciting the syllables of

krushNa". No sanskrit grammarian can accept such translation.

varNam means only "a letter ie.Syllable". "KrushNa" is a word

and not a letter.

 

Anyway, the bottomline is that its only sectarian sentimentalism

to claim as if SrI KrishNa Chaitanya is the Lord to be

worshipped in Kali Yuga etc. It has got no valid scriptural

authority. The SB verse doesn't advocate these theories.

 

In that verse, the kali yuga people is said to worship the

Lord through SankIrtana. Then, obeisances and glories to Lord

in general is made in the next few verses. It is followed by

the verse quoted by me in the previous posting :

 

"krutAdishu prajA rAjan kalAvicchanti sambhavam

kalu khalu bhavishyanti nArAyaNa parAyanAha

kvacit kvacin ................................" (11.5.38-40),

 

wherein it is clearly stated that the devotees who will

be born (Or taking avatAra) at the banks of rivers like

tAmraparaNi etc in South India are going to make such an

impact that even the people of Kruta yuga will be willing

to take birth in this kali yuga .............

This makes pointed reference to AzhwArs and SrI VaishNava

AchAryas and the sankIrtanam referred to in the verse 11.5.32,

which is said to be used for worshipping Lord in kali yuga

is nothing but the Divya Prabandhams of AzhwArs and Stotras +

prabandhams of SrI VaishNava AchAryas. This is very much

evident from these SB verses.

 

> Reg the Verse Ete camsa kalah..... Sriman Harikrisha

> has alreday answered your questions. in addition Sri

> Jiva Goswami establishes the Statement *Krishnas tu

> Bhagavan svayam* as a sutra called paribhasa sutra- a

> sutra which doesnot require any explanation or

> interpretation and is whole in itself. this he does in

> his Krishna sandharbha on the basis of smrtis and

> nyaya.

 

SrI HarikrishNa has not answered back appropriately

regarding this verse. It were only due to the misunderstanding

of the terminologies, sanskrit and other pramAnas etc. I have

gone through that work of SrI JIva GOswAmi once. I don't have it

with me now. First of all, no SrI VaishNava is objecting the fact

that Lord KrishNa is BhagavAn Himself. The verse can't be used

to support the theory of GVs. I would like to see the

KrishNa Sandarbha again. No authoritative smrutis accepted

by vEdantins esp. ViSishtAdvaitins has such information as

advocated by SrI JIva gOswAmi. I would write later on this

if I get a copy of the translation of KrushNa Sandarbha.

Such independent theories are only sectarian in nature.

 

> similarly thouggh the Bhagavatham talks of various

> avataras, it talks in every word only about Sri

> Krishna who is the only subject matter( Padma Purana)

 

So what ?

>

> Reg the position of Piratti in Srimad Bhagavatham, it

> is said in the Dasama skandam by the gopikas prior ras

> krida that *even sridevi who is situauted in your

> thiru vakshastalam is yearning for the dust of your

> lotus feet which she has to share with tulasi devi

> and others*. i only expanded on this verse that though

> situated in the vakshasthalam Sridevi yearns for

> something which others are already possessing.

 

This has nothing to do with the extrapolation that

pirAtti will not get the anubhava of rAsa krIda etc.

This verse simply explains as to how pirAtti shows

Her love to Lord by way of Her service to Him / yearning

for His service. A wife certainly has that quality

exhibited towards Her husband and thats what is portrayed

in this verse.

 

> finally , the lives of the Acharyas were as totally

> directed by the lord. certain things have to be taken

> as Lila of the Lord only viz. Udayavar unable to

> establish pancharatra worship in Thiruananthapuram

> etc. it is only divine will. we being the

> infinitismally small jivas try to explain everything

> within the purview of our logic. but it has its limit.

>

> Why Sri Bhasyakarar did not refer to SB is only known

> to him and the lord. we can only try to give various

> reasons to satisfy ourselves because we are strictly

> bound by logic.

>

> it is where this logic ends that what is called as

> acintya begins.

 

It has nothing to do with what we are discussing at

present. Don't be dogmatic that Bhagavad RAmAnuja's

philosophy is incomplete and ends in a logical level,

while SrI Chaitanya explains the acintya level etc.

Speak on the authority of SAstras.

 

There is also one most barbaric and uncivilized rumour

spread by GVs as if SrI Chaitanya instructed Bhagavad

RAmAnuja to teach only dAsya rasa and principles of

SrI Vaishnavism and reserve the mAdhurya rasa part to

him and blessed Bhagavad RAmAnuja by putting his (SrI

Chaitanya's) feet over his head etc. Its all sectarian

fanaticism and these amount to very high degrees of

bhAgavatha apachAram. Not only bhagavad RAmAnuja, but

other VaishNava AchAryas are also not spared off. Many

imaginative stories are fabricated by GVs as if SrI

Chaitanya has blessed SrI MadhvAchArya, SrI NimbarkAchArya

etc and instructed them to teach certain things etc.

All these things are totally rubbish and are products of

pure fanaticism and cheating the people around by mere

sentiments and emotional stories.

 

Even if this rumour is taken to be true, its hardly true

that Bhagavad RAmAnuja only explained dAsya rasa to his

disciples. Many pAsurams of AzhwArs are in nAyikA bhAvam

and it has been well exaplined by Bhagavad RAmAnuja and

commentries does have the record of his certain

interpretations.

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

anantapadmanAbhan.

krishNArpaNam.